Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Quite frankly, it is rare that I find much agreement with anything Suzan Cooke posts. Of late, she has become more and more of a self-caricature, the angry radical, ranting against imagined threats. Simply put, I find her extremely intolerant, very narrow-minded, massively egotistical, and laughably extremist. Cooke is, in many ways, a left-wing counterpart to someone like Michele Bachman. The vast majority of her "blog" is simply reposts of articles from various radical left-wing sources, with occasional comments from Cooke tacked on at the beginning. There is very little original content these days. And even the original stuff is an odd mix of articles that seem to either completely trash the "transgender Borg," or which seem strongly in support of the transgender movement.

Well in the midst of all this Cooke has posted a surprising good post that, without question, completely refutes the transgender paradigm. In a single post, Cooke has managed to devastate the claims of kooks like "Cristan" Williams, "Autumn" Sandeen, and "Monica" Helms. Simply put, this post should, but most likely won't, put an end to the attempts of the transgender extremists to co-opt transsexuals. It is time for them to acknowledge that transgender is separate from transsexual. In another words, the transgender have lost. It is over.

I won't quote the entire post. Click above, and you should be able to read it. But here are few of the best points:

It is an exercise of male privilege and expectations, of possessing male authority, when those who have penises presume the right to dictate to women how they should think and behave. That includes dictating thought and behavior to post-transsexual women who had sex reassignment surgery and now have female parts.

This is an excellent statement of the thesis of the post. It does an excellent job of summing up the whole issue.

It is an exercise in male privilege to tell me that I have been drafted into a cult I never joined, that didn’t exist until recently. To tell me that because you baptized me into this cult against my will I can never leave the cult.

It is sociopathic male behavior to threaten, bully, verbally abuse and harass post-transsexual women, who refuse to be part of the Transgender Borg Cult.

It is sociopathic male privilege to think it is alright to abuse us for wanting to be ordinary women after we have had our surgery and in some case have been post-op for far more than half our lives.

These three are devastating to the views of the gender fascists. Especially the third. They really hate the idea that we might choose to be, and succeed at being, ordinary women.

It is male privilege to presume you have the right to invalidate the lives of women in order to validate your claims to being women even though you have a penis between your legs instead of a vagina.

And it should be noted, the transgender don't really want to be "women," they want to be called women, treated as women, and accepted as women, while maintaining maleness, and they want everyone to be forced into this bizarre bit of fiction. They want it, quite simply, both ways. They want, as one kook once put it, to be "woman-males."

It is male privilege to tell female people that you get to define woman and that having a penis should not keep one from being considered female.

The definition of women is pretty much settled, and has been for pretty much the length of time that humans have been around, but now the transgender extremists want to change things. They want, as has been pointed out before, to make it sort of a matter of name it, and claim it. Say you are a woman, and poof, you become a woman. This, of course, is insanity, but sadly they have actually had some success in forcing this view on society. And Heaven help the person who dares disagree.

Cooke's post should be sent to those who support transgender extremism with the suggestion that they reconsider their views. It will be hard for them to argue against.

[Follow-up] Normally, I would write this as a separate post, and I might do so later, but the next post will be, according to Blogger, my 200th post, and I am planning something special.

In any case, Mr. Cristan Williams, in another example of transgender cluelessness has a post entitled "Crowing Over Progress." What an apropos choice of word. After all, a rooster crows, and of course, Mr. Williams is so very, very male. Even if he has had SRS, it did not make him a woman, just as you cannot make a silk purse out of sow's ear (or in Mr. Cristan's case, a boar's ear). So yes, I suppose he is crowing for sure. Oh, and of course in the article he points out something that sort of undermines all of his crowing. He points out that it has come to light that Obama's "nanny" in Indonesia was transgender. That is, Obama was raised for a while by a man who was pretending to be a woman (and who de-transitioned out of fear) which goes a long way towards explaining why the Obama administration has been so oddly pro-transgender. So, in spite of what Mr. Williams want to claim, it is not all that obnoxious transgender lobbying that did the trick, but a rather bizarre coincidence instead.

So, somewhat cluelessly, "Cristan" Williams has actually confirmed what I said previously. It is a matter of male privilege, and he likes to "crow" about it, no doubt also strutting like the rooster he is so like.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Well, two of the more extremist of the transgender nut cases have offered up posts that both show the serious flaws in their goals, and the contradictory nature of their logic.Both "Autumn" Sandeen and "Cristan" Williams have, quite cluelessly, shot themselves in the foot. Well, Mr. Williams more than Mr. Sandeen. Sandeen has simply shown the anti-social nature of his desires. Williams has shown that his claims about the origins of "transgender" are not true.First off, Sandeen has posted in response to Jillian Page, who he describes as a "wonderful friend" even as he takes Page to task for stating what Sandeen no doubt considers the ultimate heresy against transgender doctrine. As I discussed in my last post, Sandeen is ranting against stealth by "trans people," and I can imagine his outrage that someone he considers a fellow traveler has the audacity to actually disagree with him. I mean, how dare anyone but Sandeen presume to state what the primary goal of transgender people "should be?"Page states:

The ultimate goal of trans people is to blend in with society, and not to draw any special attention to themselves. I think we are getting to the point where the less said to the media, the better, especially about such personal things like having babies. I mean, whose business is it, anyway?

Now I don't identify as "trans" anything, but I see merit in this comment. I have a lot less problem with those who are trying to blend in with society. And I do wish "trans people" would learn some discretion when it comes to the media. The example that Page gives is classic, a transgender "man" who has given birth in England. At least in this case the masculinized woman had the good sense not to allow her name to be used. No, men do not have babies. And I don't care what the British tabloids want to claim, this person was not a "male mother," first, second, or otherwise. Of course, Sandeen is aghast at the suggestion that trans people primary goal is anything other than the complete destruction of certain societal standards. And this is what is wrong with the transgender movement in general. It is not about being who you really are, but instead is about rebelling against gender norms and imposing an unpopular view on society.I think part of this is because, as certain behavior becomes more acceptable, the transgender need more and more outrageous behavior to fuel their fetishes. It used to be that appearing in public dressed as a woman could quickly land a man in jail. That sort of law has disappeared, so now there is less "thrill" in being publicly crossdressed. There is little shock value in just being a crossdresser, so they have to push the envelope.Now, a commenter on Sandeen's site suggests that he is pushing this agenda because he is not able to "pass." And yes, in Sandeen's case, "pass" is the appropriate term, as he is not now, and never will be a woman. The best he can hope for is to fool someone into thinking he is not a man,though that is extremely unlikely.The other post that shows what is wrong with the transgender movement, as I said, comes from none other than lead gender fascist "Cristan" WIlliams. Williams, who has made a name for himself by posting obscure citations that are supposed to prove that "transgender" really does apply to transsexuals, and that separatists are wrong. The problem, for him, is that they prove nothing remotely like that. At best, assuming that all of the claimed posts are remotely legitimate (still an open question since Williams basically demands that people prove a negative, which is a classic false argument) they show that a variety of people put "trans" and "gender" together, sometimes in reference to transsexuals, and other times in reference to other groups. In one recent post he even cites C.S. Lewis using the term "trans-sexual." The problem for Williams is that Lewis was referring to marriages in Heaven. A classic question from theology, which Lewis answers with the idea that people will "beyond sex," not that the saints will have their sex changed upon arrival at the Pearly Gates. Granted, that was a plot line a rather silly bit of transvestite fiction that was cited in one scholarly book on the subject of transvestites.And therein lies the problem for Williams' basic argument. The fact that various people, at various times, may have used a word does not equate to them holding to the current concept which is attached to that word. And it is actually the concept, not the word that those Williams likes to label as separatists reject. But that requires actual logic and thought, not one of Williams' strengths. He prefers what he perceives, usually erroneously, as clever arguments.And Phillip Frye, who is, as shown by the very history that Williams posts, a heterosexual transvestite who was quite determined to force his little hobby on society serves as a perfect example of why many transsexuals want no part of "transgender." Frye has, in the past, attacked transsexuals, and has made statements to the effect that people should not have surgery, claim that 50% are dissatisfied after surgery. This, of course, is clearly a lie. Of course, Frye is not the first transgender extremist to make such a claim. Many of them vehemently oppose surgery for anyone.Frye has attempted any number of legal frauds, such as suggesting that people claim to suffer from ectopic ovaries and a hyperthrophied clitoris in order to get their birth certificate changed. And he then suggested that such a birth certificate could be used to obtain a fraudulent same sex marriage. Now, I support same sex marriage, but not through fraud. That accomplishes nothing. And Frye is one who is often credited with the creation of the modern transgender movement. Of course, what is repeatedly denied by Williams is the simple truth that originally, transgender was presented as an alternative to transsexualism. It started when some crossdressers, such as Frye, "Holly" Boswell, and yes, Arnold Lowman (aka Charles "Virginia" Prince). For example, Dallas Denny (no use in using what some refer to as "scare quotes" here, as Denny was named "Dallas" at birth, and as I understand, never changed his name. In fact, as I understand it, his legal name remains Dallas Henry Denny) wrote in a review of a book from the earlier days of the transgender movement:

To their everlasting credit, a few courageous souls, notably Virginia Prince, Linda Phillips, Phyllis Randolph Frye, and Holly Boswell, realized the absurdity of this type of thinking, and began asking, quietly at first, and then with increasing force and volume, “Why is it necessary to have a surgery I don’t want in order to live the life I desire?” Once posed, this question had but one logical answer, and that was that the rigidly dichotomous gender roles of our society had made us blind to the possibility, and that of course, they and other transgendered persons could function in society as women without offering their genitals up to the surgeons.

Yes, contrary to what Williams tries so hard to claim, it really did start out as an anti-transsexual movement. And part of the irony is, Denny rushed into surgery, even though many who knew him felt he was not a good candidate. For the record, there is no joy in being right about such a thing.The concept of "transgender" that we have today (as opposed to some obscure use of the term that Williams happened to possibly turn up) was first conceived as an alternative to transsexual. It originated when some aging transvestites decided that they wanted to be full-time crossdressers, but did not remotely want to give up their penises. Then, because of the transgender hierarchy that they often try to deny exists, they decided that they were "really" transsexuals....except, well, they still didn't want to give up their penises, but hey, they liked calling themselves transsexuals because, well, it sounded better than admitting that they were still crossdressers, just full time.But how could they claim to be transsexuals if transsexuals were not "transgender." Thus the movement that began as an alternative to being transsexual began to claim to be about being transsexual, and the term was morphed into the vague, confusing mess we have today, and they wonder why transsexuals want no part of their silliness.And, of course, Williams continues to try to force people to accept the label transgender, whether they like it or not. And, of course, we continue to laugh at his silliness.

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman,” and perhaps added a invective epithet to the end of that line, but I didn’t.

I could’ve answered “I’m a woman, but I’m also a male-to-female transsexual,” but I didn’t.

Instead, I looked him straight in the eye and said without weakness or animosity, “Well, I’m transgender.” I chose to fully embrace my sociopolitical trans identity in my answer to that young man.

It’s clear what he expected from me to feel was humiliated at the asking of his question. It’s clear that he expected me to embrace internalized transphobia. He didn’t expect me to be matter of fact regarding my trans identity; the young man looked somewhat taken aback at my answer.

Sandeen is not a woman, so the first would have been an outright lie, and given the fact that he had clearly been read, would have been sort of silly.

The second would have been two lies, again not a woman, and no, not remotely a transsexual.

No, Sandeen actually told the truth. He is not a woman, he is not a transsexual, he is simply a man with "sociopolitical trans identity." That is, he is a man who likes to play dress-up, pretend to be a woman, and make some sort of bizarre sociopolitical statement about rebelling against society's gender norms.

I doubt the young man was as taken aback, as he was just surprised that Sandeen, for a change, was actually honest.

But that is not the point of Sandeen's blog post. He wants "trans people" to be out, loud, and proud like he is. Of course, in his warped view, he includes transsexuals (after all, he falsely claims to be one). Now, if someone who is truly transsexual wants to be "out," that is, I suppose, their business, but Sandeen, as always, remains clueless.

You see, if you are "out, loud, and proud," you are effectively undoing whatever you have accomplished by transitioning. It has been the same story since Christine Jorgensen was outed back in the Fifties. She could never live a life as "just a woman." The same is true for ever other public transsexual. The more out you are, the less you are able to live as a woman, or a man in the case of an FTM.

Of course, for someone like Sandeen, this is not really an issue. He does not remotely want to be a woman. His desire is to be transgender. He enjoys parodying women, but he is not one himself, and makes no real attempt to be one, beyond engaging in some of a caricature that is more akin to drag, than to womanhood. Simply put, he is an insult to women, not one of us.

He talks about protections based on "gender identity." What that actually means, is protections based on a claim. You say that you have a "gender identity" at odds and poof, you get protections. You don't actually have to even be telling the truth. It is a totally subjective basis for protections, and in effect, makes little, if any, sense.

I think that transsexuals should be protected under the same laws that protect anyone from being discriminated against because of a medical condition. But people like Sandeen should take responsibility for their choices, and accept the consequences. Like someone who identifies as a Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, or Nazi (other examples of sociopolitical identities) Sandeen should accept that he does not have a right to protections based on how he sees himself.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The first is a rather rambling that includes a bizarre straw argument claiming that what is termed "The War on Christmas" is based on people using X-mas to refer to Christmas, and then attempting to refute this with the argument that the use began with Christians, and that the 'X' is actually the Greek letter chi which is the first letter of Christ in Greek. Well, that is the origin of X-mas, but there are several problems with Williams' claim. First off, the "War on Christmas" is not about how one spells Christmas, it is about some entities, especially large chain stores, requiring employees to refrain from wishing people "Merry Christmas." People have been instructed to only use something like "Happy Holidays." Second, many atheists have ignorantly used "X-mas" actually thinking they were disrespecting Christians, and many continue to use it hoping to create an argument.

All of this was sparked because a group called "Post-trans normality New Zealand and Australia" had the audacity to post on Facebook, and get the attention of the New Zealand Daily News. Alas, for a gender fascist like Williams, the very thought that a group of "separatists" might get the attention of the news media would be infuriating. After all, people might begin to realize that there are views different from his that need to be considered. In particular, that unlike Williams, and his ilk, transsexuals simply want to move and live as normal people, not some sort of gender rebels.

Williams, responds by taking a statement from the Facebook page out of context, and twisting it to make this group sound like it is doing exactly what Williams' devotes a lot of time to doing himself. In fact, in this same article, he is claiming that he "just wanted to PWN their newsworthy group." That is kind of hilarious, since what he claims this group is guilty of is trying to shut down discussions, but that is exactly what Williams' is claiming to have done.

Oh, and what is amusing is the completely clueless manner in which Williams claims to have accomplished this pwnage. He compares the 12 members of this group with the 4,535 members of the Facebook Transgender Alliance. The funny thing is, he simply backs up the basic separatist argument, that true transsexuals are rare, and quite distinct from the large numbers of transgender people. That true transsexuals have different needs that are lost in the mass of crossdressers, gender queers, and drag queens that make up the transgender mob.

I realize that it is lost on a man like Williams, but numbers are not the point. There will always be far more transgender people than transsexuals. Transsexualism has always been a very rare condition, though a lot of transgender frauds have tried to claim to be transsexuals, even as they reject surgery, or even living a normal life as a woman. They even go to the point of attacking someone for daring to try to have a "normal" life.

SImply put, Williams drivel about how he doesn't hate separatists comes across a lot like the "hate the sin, love the sinner" claim made by Fundamentalists. I wonder how Williams' feels about that one? WIlliams does not agree with the idea that transsexuals have a right to decline to identify as transgender, and he spends a lot of time trying to impose the term on people. He shows no respect for any view not consistent with his own.

In his other column, Williams again presents an article where Christine Jorgensen supposedly expresses a preference for the term "transgender" over "transsexual." Now, this article, which seems to be very obscure, and an isolated statement (as best I can tell, Jorgensen did not widely express this view) is supposed to date from 1982. Even if it is legitimate, all it indicates is that Jorgensen was playing around with words, and that she favored a word that removed "sex" and replaced it with "gender." It does not, in any sense, suggest that Jorgensen remotely endorsed any of the silliness pushed by gender fascists like Williams.

But this is what we have come to expect from Williams....questionable sources that only he seems to have access, straw arguments, and arrogant claims of pwnange. Oh, and a good laugh as he does

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...